The number of people flagged up to authorities for concerns over extremism rose 10% last year, with the first increase in Islamist radicalisation referrals since 2016, figures show.

There were a total of 6,287 referrals to the Government’s Prevent programme between April 2019 and March 2020 – up 10% from a record low of 5,737 the previous year.

Of these, 1,487 were for concerns over Islamist extremism – a 6% rise from 1,404 in the year to March 2019 and the first increase since the year ending March 2016.

The number of Prevent referrals for concerns over right-wing extremism dropped slightly in the latest year, to 1,387 from 1,388 in the 12 months to March 2019.

A further 3,203 people were flagged over a “mixed, unstable or unclear ideology”, while 210 were referred over other concerns like international and left-wing radicalisation.

With an annual budget of around £40 million, the Prevent scheme aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.

It was launched after public bodies were placed under a statutory duty in 2015 to stop people being drawn into terrorism.

Anyone concerned that someone they know might be at risk can refer them.

When authorities decide there is a risk that the person referred to Prevent could be drawn into terrorism, they are then assessed as part of a scheme known as Channel and potentially taken on as a case. Engagement with the scheme is voluntary and it is not a criminal sanction.

Of the 1,424 cases examined by Channel last year, 697 were taken on as a case – the highest recorded.

Some 43% (302) of the cases taken on by Channel were cases referred over concerns relating to right-wing extremism, with 30% (210) for Islamist radicalisation.

The figures show most referrals came from the police and education bodies.

More than half of all those flagged up to authorities – 3,423 or 54% – were aged 20 or under.

Read More: French militant group and mosque to close after teacher’s killing

Violent extremism is “clearly not under control” in jails and there is an “institutional squeamishness” among Government officials to tackle the problem, a former prison governor has claimed.

Ian Acheson, who led an independent review of Islamist extremism behind bars in 2016, made the comments after it is feared a convicted killer allegedly attempted a jihadist attack on prison guards at HMP Winchester.

An improvised weapon in the shape of a blade was found on the prisoner, who is not behind bars for terrorist offences, during a search after the incident.

The PA news agency understands he was afterwards overheard by officers shouting to a fellow inmate in a nearby cell that it was “a J thing” – which it is believed officials are taking to mean jihad or jihadi.

No staff were injured and the incident is not currently being investigated as terror-related.

The news comes amid growing concerns over radicalisation behind bars in the wake of three terror attack in as many months – one of which took place inside a jail while the other two involved convicted terrorists recently released from prison.

Speaking on Radio 4’s World at One programme, Mr Acheson said violent extremism was “clearly not under control inside prisons” and “presents a lethal threat” both inside and outside jails.

He said prison staff are “increasingly being confronted with a lethal extremist-inspired threat for which they are patently not equipped to deal with”, adding: “I think there is an institutional squeamishness at the top of the prison service to deal with this problem which unfortunately has now led to the situation that we see where we have got violent extremism that is at best delayed inside custody and at worst weaponised.”

Meanwhile Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, suggested keeping prisoners behind bars for longer could “expose them to worse influences” than if they were released.

In the published analysis on the emergency laws the Government has proposed to keep terrorists behind bars for longer, he warned the changes could create a “cliff edge” when offenders are instead freed without any restrictions at the end of their sentence.

There had been “foot dragging” over bringing in changes to tackle the problem, Mr Acheson claimed, adding that he was not convinced all recommendations for improvements he had made – such as ensuring prison imams had faced security checks – had been implemented.

Xeneral Imiuru had been segregated in the prison over concerns of violent behaviour towards staff, PA understands.

It is thought prison officers attended his cell in the segregation unit to check on his condition after he was seen lying on the floor.

But a struggle took place after he was found to be conscious.

The 20-year-old, also known by the surname Webster, was the first person to be convicted of an acid attack killing and was jailed for 17 years in 2018.

He pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Joanne Rand, a 47-year-old carer for dementia patients.

The innocent bystander had been visiting her daughter’s grave when she was hit with the high-strength sulphuric acid which Imiuru had armed himself with and was knocked out of his hand during a row with another man nearby.

The mother-of-three had 5% burns on her body and died 11 days later from multiple organ failure after contracting septicaemia.

A Prison Service spokesman said: “Police are investigating an incident at HMP Winchester on February 13.

“Violence against our hard-working staff will not be tolerated and those responsible will face tough punishment, including more time behind bars.”

The POA, formerly known as the Prison Officers’ Association, called for the investigation to be carried out “quickly” and said questions were being asked over how inmates might have access to weapons, particularly in segregation.

Hampshire Constabulary said an investigation was in its early stages as the incident was only reported to police on Tuesday.

It is understood officials contacted the force on Monday after the incident was initially reviewed by an internal adjudicator who deals with prison discipline matters.

Earlier this month Sudesh Amman wore a fake suicide belt as he grabbed a knife from a shop in Streatham High Road, south London, on Sunday, before stabbing two bystanders.

The 20-year-old had been jailed for possessing and distributing terrorist documents in December 2018, but was freed automatically halfway through his sentence less than a fortnight ago.

He was put under 24-hour police surveillance on his release after it is understood security services regarded him as an “extremely concerning individual”.

Two inmates wearing fake suicide belts stabbed a prison officer at maximum security jail HMP Whitemoor in January.

Saskia Jones and Jack Merritt were killed by Usman Khan in November when he launched his attack armed with two knives and wearing a fake suicide vest during a prisoner rehabilitation programme near London Bridge – nearly a year after he was released halfway through a 16-year jail sentence for terror offences.

Tackling non-violent and violent extremism involves community engagement work and due diligence capabilities and interventions from security services. It also involves community based projects which upskill the knowledge based of parents and young people, provide some theological challenge and practical pastoral care to individuals. Just some of the ways to counter extremism.

Yet, as we have mentioned time and time again, where is the financing of such groups coming from? Who are the key individuals, trusts or governmental funders of such groups in the U.K? Who are the front companies and organisations that are the shells for ‘washing’ the origins of the sources as they enter the U.K? These are key questions that we have raised and which no counter-extremism organisation has delved into.

We have raised these questions before with ministers and with organisational partners challenging extremism. Yet, many counter-extremism organisations are only comfortable ‘developing networks’, talking shops which they promote as key work to tackle extremism. Very few of the network partners are willing to openly challenge extremism, taking the easy route of working under the parapet, co-ordinating further meetings and re-creating the veneer of important work.

12 years on from the introduction of the Countering Violent Extremism policy under the then Labour Government, civil society groups working with Government have been unwilling or unable to close down the channels of financing of extremist groups. Yet, the reality is that unless this work is done, toxic financing will continue to spread divisive extremist rhetoric into our communities and society.

It is time that cross-governmental agencies, from the Treasury, Inland Revenue, Home Office and MHCLG work with civil society groups who are willing and potentially able to expand this scope of work. Without this essential work, we will always remain behind the curve.

A Prime Minister Who Laid Out A Heartfelt Vision To Tackle Extremism

We welcome the speech of the Prime Minister and the need to tackle both non-violent and violent extremism.

The Prime Minister’s approach to identifying the problem and putting in measures where grievances are both addressed and tackled was delivered in a heartfelt and robust manner. The Prime Minister also made clear that wider issues such as employment and training opportunities should be made available to young people as a means of giving them confidence in themselves and this progressive stance should be welcome by those working in the field of tackling extremism. 

Conspiracy Theories

We also welcome the picture that the Prime Minister drew of those who use conspiracy theories to corrode trust between the State and Muslim communities. Through the work we have done on tackling extremism, we have on numerous occasions come across such theories which suggest that organisations working on Prevent (Preventing Extremism), are extended versions of the Government’s intelligence agencies. Such smears, thrown at progressive organisations working in the field of Prevent, simply create a ‘them and us’ fuelling a narrative that the Government is somehow the real problem, whilst failing to address the dangerous phenomena of a small number of young Muslim men and women being drawn to ISIS and other extreme groups.

However, the oversimplification of the drivers towards radicalisation risk alienating swathes of British Muslims. Positing ideology as the main driver overlooks a multitude of factors that drives individuals towards violent extremism.

In our far-reaching report on the Prevent strategy we caution that “The 2011 Prevent strategy fixates on ideology and religiosity at the expense of understanding propensity for violence. It excludes and isolates groups that do not fit into its narrow definition of ‘British values’. By operating through a highly centralised approach to disrupting extremists, the Prevent strategy runs the risk of deteriorating the healthy liberal public sphere deemed necessary to opening counter-speech and debate that can challenge the intellectual basis of genuinely violent extremist opinions”.

We also welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about challenging individuals who peddle conspiracy theories of ‘Islamisation’ and race hate. On the issues of alienation, a search for identity and political grievances, we believe that projects that provide a ‘safe space’ for such discussions should be supported. Offering individuals a ‘safe space’ to discuss these issues in an inclusive manner creates two opportunities: to challenge these “grievance justifications” and let individuals speak without fear of censor. Without these spaces we potentially drive young people into the dark parts of the internet.  

Wider View

This speech is the start of a wider government response to radicalisation. A response that includes the Home secretary refusing to rule out the possibility of British troops and tanks being deployed against ISIS militants. It is a debate that contains both a domestic and international flavour. Moving forward requires partnerships; not a top-down approach towards Muslim communities. Overall though, this is a strong start where muscular liberalism is at the heart of the strategy.